Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Ms Moyo may be an "international economist" but in this short piece she simply repeats the "Project Fear" non-argument that Britain inside the EU somehow has a lot of influence over world affairs whereas Britain outside the EU wouldn't. Presumably the idea is that Britain influences and steers EU policy, bending it to her will, and then the rest of the world jumps to attention when the British-moulded EU policy is brought forth in international forums. Tosh. Britain is one of 28 EU countries (soon to be 30 or more); more and more EU decisions and policies are made by majority vote; and there are influential forces within the EU that oppose Britain almost as a matter of principle. As time goes by, British influence over EU policy will only wane -- she will end up on a par with Latvia or Slovenia in terms of influence. On the other hand (and see below), Britain outside the EU would be able to take her own seat on many international bodies (as Norway and Switzerland currently do) while the whole of the EU would also occupy only one seat. Viewed that way, Britain outside the EU would have 28 times as much influence over world affairs as she does inside it.
For a thoroughly comprehensive analysis of not only the argument for leaving the EU but also a well-thought-through, coherent *plan* for how Brexit could be achieved (something that is signally missing from *all* the argument and analysis I have seen so far from the Leave faction), it's worth taking the time to trawl through Dr Richard North's site, www.EUReferendum.com. Dr North has been campaigning for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU for many years, but he isn't a ranting "wogs begin at Calais" type of voice. He has an impressive CV, having worked for Government, both in the UK and the EU, been in at the start of UKIP (but left after falling out with Farage, a road trodden by many) and working for many years as a researcher and co-author with the journalist Christopher Booker. If you read his blog you will find that he has a sensible, measured view of affairs, and gives credit to the EU where it is due. Regarding Brexit, he led a team that has written an exit plan, named Flexcit, available at http://eureferendum.com/themarketsolution.pdf, that sets out a plan and timetable for a British withdrawal from the EU while taking into account the need to maintain relations with erstwhile colleague nations and ensure that the status quo continues in the short to medium term. I commend the eureferendum.com website and the Flexcit document to anyone who wants to gain a proper understanding of the real options of the Leave camp, rather than the yah-boo "we'll all be worse off/no we won't" nonsense that the current non-debate spits out.

I do not see how the UK could loose influence on geopolitical matters because of leaving the EU. The UK does not even have enough power within the EU to stop them from following misguided policies (just enough to sometimes exclude themselves ). There is no EU foreign policy. The only benefit of the EU is access to markets. For this corporations are more than willing to give up sovereignity to Brusselles bureaucrats. They are easier to buy than voters.

When Intellectuals term The Anglosphere's reluctance to join Latin Monetary Union Ver. XXI as "Choosing Irrelevance", history seems having turned a full circle. A Union that was the dream of the Corporal from Corsica, never came so close to fruition since 1814. Millions of lives later, the Corporal dream still haunts a Continental conscience, risking all that has happened in the history of The West. Nothing has changed. A Tale of Two Cities is how Dickens described A Battle that seems endless and pointless. History always written by the winners - said The Corporal on the eve of Waterloo. Despite the Eurotunnel that bridges the channel and the chasm, history destined to repetition until doom.

Your argument distills down to "..my buddies say that there should be no Brexit." Tom's points are well made. The underlying belief that a larger group ( UN, League of Nations, EU, Nato, IMF) will solve, is nurtured, to advantage, by control nations ( say, the USA). This sort of "wash" trading protocol is ho-hum on the stock market but is viewed as " ..a brilliant piece of political engineering" by the dummies who sign on. 5 to 2 says that the Brits are not that stupid.

This is a very interesting take on Brexit. One could add the issue of language. English, the Ex-Machina propelled by the internet, will of course not go away. It will continue to be the language of commerce, finance and science and technology. The Brits, or what they will be called post-Brexit, will continue to cash in on that global conquest. The Empire seems to be striking back positively in that regard.

The European Union is a busted flush. It is dead already at a popular level throughout Europe. It may have had a political purpose after the Second World War and during the Cold War but has no purpose now except institutional self-interest. Its elites are bullies with no interest in accountability. It is run by them for them. No self-respecting democrat has any time for it. As to brexit, it is looking a little more likely every day and is not impossible now. I would welcome it as do many millions of quite sensible British people- and possibly a majority. Economically we don't fear self-government and politically we seek it. The German-derived torture of the Greek people was for many previous supporters like myself the last straw, with Merkel's stupidity around asylum seekers/economic migrants from Syria and points east, adding to my sense that the Euro elite are out of control. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Project Syndicate writers need to get out more and meet people outside the Beltway whom none of us trust any more anyway to govern in our interests. The EU is debased and frankly past its sell by date. Get over it and think afresh about a world without it.

On the plus side, a Brexit would force the english population to come to term with the fact that the British Empire is dead and buried and "The Crown" is little more than a tiny principality incapable of being independent on its own.

Firstly you outline that 90% of the worlds population is in developing countries and 2/3rds are under 25

At that point you need to stop, because simply the critical mass of the worlds population, which will influence the future are in that group, futhermore it is highly unlikely that the 10% of the worlds population not in developing countires can economically uplift that 90% or the 54% of the worlds population that are under 25 in that statistic. In fact this is the problem - as the developing nations grow in population they have got to stand on their own feet and the signs are ominous on that

Youth unemployment in developing countries is lets say 25%, so thats circa 13.5% of the worlds population is under 25 years, unemployed and in developing countries with economic problems. There is no end to this as for example Nigeria is forecast to double its population in a matter of decades

From the developing countries the likely outcome unless we are all lucky will be a mixture of social unrest, begging from the West and attempsts to migrate to the West either on an economic basis or as a refugee

This will have far more indfluence than anything the UK can say or do

You are correct when you say the UK '...a relatively small country with limited economic and political power'. Whether the UK is in the EU or not that remains the case. Your proposition that the UK can influence the EU is overplayed as the record says that the UK has little influence in the EU. It has had to come to the point of possibly leaving to gain any small and very reluctant dispensation from the EU cartel

The main problem with the EU is it is dysfunctional and increasingly undermined by the flawed Eurozone. There is a very real case for the EU to decline as its democratic system is in lockdown on reform measures and economic stress due to failure to reform will only exacerbate disassociation between members

A key charactistic of democracy, which is why it is successful, is its ability to shift policy in the face of change. A key characteristic of the EU is its inability to shift policy in the face of change, and its repeated attempts to maintain and reinforce an illogical position. A very obvious example is Greece is bust and needs debt write off, denied, current situation unsustainable

The unstoppable force in the world will be mass youth unemployment in the developing countries and the question then is will the EU including the UK or the UK solo be best able to cope with that. The EU recent history on the Greek Eurozone crisis, Schengen, internal migration, inward refugee and economic migration, external border control, and international refugee aid is not positive. The situation for the UK solo is unknown but it would not be hard to achieve more than the dysfunctional EU

The UKs internation presence that you refer to has recently been Blair being the US poodle which is a role few want. The UK proposal that Syrian refugees be funded adequently in the ME and refugees be taken directly from there was ignored completely. It has now been lurched towards by the EU out of desperation. However it again highlights that the UK has little influence

I am afraid economics is only part of the situation and whilst you are an economist and argue from the standpoint it does not answer effectively.

A remain vote will be driven by floating voter fear may be the result, who knows. But it will be the floating voter who decides and they are unlikely to read your article. The odds are 2/5 stay, 7/4 leave

By and large, the vast majority of the people will see this as a referendum on immigration and not much else. Immigration tops all the concerns of voters, it is dominating media debates and it has crossed from the populist fringes into the mainstream political discourses (more vocally for politicians on the right, but also for some on the left). It is a highly emotionally charged debate and it is difficult to locate convincingly rational arguments that would have a broad appeal.
The Brexit camp has, to my mind, three components: a substantial number of English nationalist Tories who can articulate and understand a sovereignist argument and can put forward a coherent argument against aspects of the EU structures and bureaucracy; a small number of radical neo-liberal economists who see the EU as hindrance to more laissez faire; and finally, a small number of radical left-wing/Socialists in and around the Labour party who describe the EU as capitalist conspiracy that is oppressing the workers. While there is a shared libertarian critique of the EU’s democratic deficit in all three strands, when it comes to how this translates arguments with the voters, the debate immediately slides back to immigration. I have now been following vox populi in the media for months and people will repeat the central slogan of the Brexit campaign ‘we need to get back control of our country’, but when the reporters probes into that, the sole argument that people can articulate is ‘we lost control of our borders, immigration is out of control etc.’
Most other components of the debate will have a limited appeal and will engage only small numbers of people either with very strong convictions or who will be directly affected by Brexit (mostly big businesses). Nobody on the anti-Brexit side dares taking on the immigration argument and try to counter it with a strategy that would resonate with the voters. Either they don’t have the courage or there is actually no argument that the voters will believe. And the big elephant in the room will just stay put.

The choice ought to be about **prosperity**, not "relevance". That word choice is a big red flag. In geopolitics, the future of the UK will be same as the past 50 years - junior partner to larger powers. It is in finance where the UK is most significant. Being outside the EU's jurisdiction may well be a net positive in that realm.

The model European Union is offering continues to breed some serious flaws . Countries from Eeastern Europe facing fiscal imbalances are more to benefit from such Union thus far. As for Breixt, it is likely to trigger much larger effect on how the remining brethren would hold tight. The current influx of emigrants into Europe would surely redefine the efficacy of whole economic system and of course with it the raison d'etre of the Union itself. However, some argue that Britain would in last hours shy away from such exist.